An experiment to prove the Moon isn't dangerous

Quote from: Skeleton on July 13, 2011, 02:05:22 PM

Since the FES members are the ones claiming that the effect is well documented, I call upon them to disprove my hypothesis that the reason I cant find well-documented studies is that they dont exist. I dont think there are any studies published demonstrating the harmful effects of moonlight on people.

I posted one just 5 posts above this. With a link as how to find more. That you won't actually read the sources we provide you, does not mean they do not exist.

Untrue. You posted a link to a study pertaining to phase which does not take into account light exposure. How many times do I have to repeat this phrase before you actually understand it? Your other link was about the Transylvania effect which, again, pertains to phase NOT exposure magnitude or duration of light.
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF MOONLIGHT. MOONLIGHT, DAMMIT. Not PHASE.

So you admit that the phase of the moon, can have a harmful effect on humans?

So you admit that the phase of the moon, can have a harmful effects on humans?

I have never denied that some studies would indicate this, yes. What I do have issue with is that none of these studies take into account the duration or magnitude of exposure to moonlight, which is what the FES claim is "well documented". There is therefore NO indication that moonlight is the cause of harm in these studies pertaining to phase.

Actually the ones concerning mental illness take this into account in great detail.  Have you read any of them?  They are easy to find.

Actually the ones concerning mental illness take this into account in great detail.  Have you read any of them?  They are easy to find.

Yes, I have read some, the only ones which make mention of exposure to light are ones that only talk about it during full moon phase. It is therefore impossible to seperate any effects of light from the effects of phase, leaving my assertion that there are no well documented studies showing the harmfulness of moonlight intact.
Unless you have found one which does make this separation? If so, please link it.
I would also think it obvious to sensible readers that the time of greatest exposure to moonlight is not during full moon at all but at another time of the moons phase, but Im sure being such an expert you already know this.

Quote from: John Davis on July 13, 2011, 05:41:46 PM

Actually the ones concerning mental illness take this into account in great detail.  Have you read any of them?  They are easy to find.

Yes, I have read some, the only ones which make mention of exposure to light are ones that only talk about it during full moon phase. It is therefore impossible to seperate any effects of light from the effects of phase, leaving my assertion that there are no well documented studies showing the harmfulness of moonlight intact.
Unless you have found one which does make this separation? If so, please link it.
I would also think it obvious to sensible readers that the time of greatest exposure to moonlight is not during full moon at all but at another time of the moons phase, but Im sure being such an expert you already know this.

Except many separate out between a control variable based on whether they can see the moon...

Kind of a fluke but I just looked at when the next full moon is...and it is now, right to the minute. 

Quote from: Skeleton on July 14, 2011, 02:36:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 13, 2011, 05:41:46 PM

Actually the ones concerning mental illness take this into account in great detail.  Have you read any of them?  They are easy to find.

Yes, I have read some, the only ones which make mention of exposure to light are ones that only talk about it during full moon phase. It is therefore impossible to seperate any effects of light from the effects of phase, leaving my assertion that there are no well documented studies showing the harmfulness of moonlight intact.
Unless you have found one which does make this separation? If so, please link it.
I would also think it obvious to sensible readers that the time of greatest exposure to moonlight is not during full moon at all but at another time of the moons phase, but Im sure being such an expert you already know this.

Except many separate out between a control variable based on whether they can see the moon...

Links to any that do this well enough to show harmful effects of light independent of phase? No? I cant find any that do this.

Since we are tossing around correlations, i thought I would throw mine in.

http://pineda-krch.com/2008/09/03/causal-basis-of-the-ice-cream-shark-correlation-fallacy/

While correlation does not imply causation, correlation is the only way we can infer causation.

I see the flattists are still keen as mustard to bring to our attention all the well documented studues showing the harmfulness of moonlight that I cant find. They are so helpful like that.

I see the flattists are still keen as mustard to bring to our attention all the well documented studues showing the harmfulness of moonlight that I cant find. They are so helpful like that.

Pongo has pointed out the moon is at its most full.

Quote from: Thork on July 13, 2011, 02:19:33 PM

So you admit that the phase of the moon, can have a harmful effect on humans?

I have never denied that some studies would indicate this, yes.

I would have thought, that you would have been interested in this kind of information.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 03:38:32 AM

I see the flattists are still keen as mustard to bring to our attention all the well documented studues showing the harmfulness of moonlight that I cant find. They are so helpful like that.

Pongo has pointed out the moon is at its most full.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 13, 2011, 02:22:01 PM

Quote from: Thork on July 13, 2011, 02:19:33 PM

So you admit that the phase of the moon, can have a harmful effect on humans?

I have never denied that some studies would indicate this, yes.

I would have thought, that you would have been interested in this kind of information.

1. Yeah, so?
2. Yes, I am. I am interested in the cause of the medical effects, not just their correlation with phase, which is why I am interested to see the well documented studies showing that the light of the moon rather than any other aspect of a full moon is the cause.

Its not my fault you are unable to do rudimentary research.  Like I've said countless times I feel no need to do it for you in the future.

Its not my fault you are unable to do rudimentary research.  Like I've said countless times I feel no need to do it for you in the future.

I've done rudimentary research and found nothing. You dont need to do any research for me because as is clear from statements like "the harmful effects of moonlight are well documented", you flattists obviously have this data at your fingertips. If you hadnt already read many, many studies showing the harmful effects of moonlight as distinct from phase, why, then you would not have made such a bold assertion that they exist, would you? Of course you dont need to go look for them, you must already have them listed in your FES Archives... dont you?

 

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

None of the serious FE believers talk about moonshramps, and after a heated debate references to moonshramps in the upper FE boards have been practically banned. 

While correlation does not imply causation, correlation is the only way we can infer causation.

I agree.  Please substitute the word infer for the word proove in all future posts.  That is my only real objection to most of the theories on here.


Proove is a word seldom used in science.  Disprove is a more commonly used term.

I don't know that I've ever seen "proove" used.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

None of the serious FE believers talk about moonshramps, and after a heated debate references to moonshramps in the upper FE boards have been practically banned.

Yes, that is true. 'Moonshramps' were created by trolls to discredit the moonshrimp theory, in which many legitimate FErs believe.

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

We just may be keeping some research close to the vest for the same reason.  I am not one to say "I told you so" or to make people chomp on their words.  While producing evidence from research it is still useful to suggest that people do their own searches for data that is available at large. 

To me, we are here for the benefit of society as a whole and are not driven by some selfish motivation. 

Skeleton, please ignore the troll (Verrine).

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

Actually its a direct consequence of you acting like an asshat.  Deal with it.  I'm not interested in putting forth any effort after last time to helping you understand our work.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

Actually its a direct consequence of you acting like an asshat.  Deal with it.  I'm not interested in putting forth any effort after last time to helping you understand our work.

Thats your decision. Which is fine, and allows me to persist in my belief that there are no well documented studies, a belief there is not a shred of evidence to dispel. Your babbling that there are would imply youve seen them, and your refusal to show them to me even when asked would imply you havent. Your non-resolution of these two opposing implications points towards the latter as the path of least resistance.
I propose that in honour of the acknowledged expert in this field, the act of claiming you have evidence for something but refusing to give any indication of what or where it is should be referred to as "gothaming".
For example "Bob Bishop says he runs a college, but I reckon he is gothaming".

Quote from: John Davis on July 15, 2011, 04:28:59 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

Actually its a direct consequence of you acting like an asshat.  Deal with it.  I'm not interested in putting forth any effort after last time to helping you understand our work.

Thats your decision. Which is fine, and allows me to persist in my belief that there are no well documented studies, a belief there is not a shred of evidence to dispel. Your babbling that there are would imply youve seen them, and your refusal to show them to me even when asked would imply you havent. Your non-resolution of these two opposing implications points towards the latter as the path of least resistance.
I propose that in honour of the acknowledged expert in this field, the act of claiming you have evidence for something but refusing to give any indication of what or where it is should be referred to as "gothaming".
For example "Bob Bishop says he runs a college, but I reckon he is gothaming".

I would add that those that propose terms of circumstance they believe are true but are not true are "Skeletonizing" the members they refer to.   

Any research that is hinted at and not produced is flawed.  A better term would be "scientologyesk"

It is only possible to believe the research if you do not have a critical mind, you need to be in a conidition of outright acceptance to view it.

If the work could stand up to peer review, it would be published.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 15, 2011, 04:28:59 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:41:57 AM

I'm starting to think Davis is just like gotham, he will say the research or evidence exists, but refuses to give it out.

Do you guys actually expect to convince anyone by keeping all your research and evidence a secret, or are you just here for your own benefit?

Standard FE response will be to say their aim is not to convince anyone. Which I believe, or they wouldnt say all the toss about moonshramps.

Actually its a direct consequence of you acting like an asshat.  Deal with it.  I'm not interested in putting forth any effort after last time to helping you understand our work.

Thats your decision. Which is fine, and allows me to persist in my belief that there are no well documented studies, a belief there is not a shred of evidence to dispel. Your babbling that there are would imply youve seen them, and your refusal to show them to me even when asked would imply you havent. Your non-resolution of these two opposing implications points towards the latter as the path of least resistance.
I propose that in honour of the acknowledged expert in this field, the act of claiming you have evidence for something but refusing to give any indication of what or where it is should be referred to as "gothaming".
For example "Bob Bishop says he runs a college, but I reckon he is gothaming".

I would add that those that propose terms of circumstance they believe are true but are not true are "Skeletonizing" the members they refer to.   

Er, believing something to be true which isnt already has a term, which is "mistaken". BTW "skeletonising" would be the correct term because I am British, and the word already has an assignation so no, you cant use it.